AbstractThe propaganda dispensed by Public health care and vaccine apologists is, at
best, a weak attempt to rationalize the healthcare establishment’spositions using all the tools of doublespeak or, as George Orwell’s
called it in his book 1984, “newspeak”, to: (a) mislead, (b) distort reality,
(c) pretendto communicate, (d) make the bad seem
good, (e) avoid and/or shift responsibility, (f) make the negative appear
positive, (g) create a false verbalmap of the world,
and (h) create dissonance between reality and what their narrative said or did
not say.

Such propaganda often relies on half-truths and/or superficially logical, but
foundationally flawed, phrasing. However, this propaganda is fundamentallyflawed and based on pseudo-science or non-reviewable statistical studies
of medical records, where, contrary to ethical science, the studydesign, data selection/rejection criteria, exact approach used to
evaluate the data, and/or the original data itself are kept confidential making
independentevaluation/verification of the published
findings impossible. A review of the statements from an article in the November
1, 2007 issue of theSkeptical Inquirer that is
entitled “Vaccines and Autism: Myths and Misconceptions” by
Steven Novella, MD
(which was found online athttp://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-170731919.html)
triggered this presentation of the factual realities that rebut the
myths/misconceptions presentedin that article and/or
in similar articles published and/or underwritten by the purveyors of vaccines
and vaccination recommendations. Each
myth/misconception is summarized in a short statement and then addressed by
presenting the factual reality and when appropriate, providing peer reviewedreferences that support this reality.

Reality: Autism is a disorder that is diagnosed by a defined setof symptoms/behaviors (according to the DSM-IV or Diagnosticand Statistical Manual 4th edition) that are known to havemultiple causes, some of which are known (e.g., Thalidomide,alcohol consumption, and synthetic retinoids [synthetic VitaminA derivatives] taken during pregnancy, and poisoning by heavymetals such as lead and mercury [most recently, viaThimerosal]).1 In general, there are two recognized types ofautism: congenital and regressive (or delayed-onset) autism.However, with the recommendations: a) to inoculate pregnantwomen with a potential Rh-factor blood incompatibility with aThimerosal-preserved serum (a Rho(D) serum) at 28 weeks,during any amniocentesis or spotting episode in the late 1980sto early 2000s)2 and b), starting in 2002, to vaccinate pregnantwoman with influenza vaccines that are Thimerosal-preserved,3it has obviously become increasingly difficult to differentiatebetween these two types of autism.

Reality: The set of symptoms used to diagnose autism andother neurodevelopmental disorders are the same as or highlysimilar to the symptoms seen in individuals with sub-acutemercury poisoning.

In addition, other non-neurological symptoms (e.g, severegastrointestinal dysfunction, dystonia) are exhibited by thosewho have a diagnosis of sub-acute (less than ultimately lethal)mercury poisoning because Thimerosal is an all-systems poison(e.g., cardiovascular, endocrine, dermal, etc.)

The reality of the preceding has been repeatedly establishedand discussed by Dr. King4 who presents comparative listingsof and references for the similarity between the symptoms ofautism and related neurodevelopmental disorders and those ofsub-acute mercury poisoning.

To aid the reader, a portion of the information provided inDr. King’s reference is presented in Table I below.

Reality: Despite the large-scale genetic studies to pinpoint the“autism” genes, to date, only a small percentage of those with adiagnosis of autism have been found to have any identified geneticabnormalities (e.g., Fragile X, downs syndrome, TaySachs).

Even children with, for example, Fragile X, where some arediagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, many do not havethis diagnosis.5

Additionally, those with ties to public health and the pharmaceuticalindustry know that a growing body of scientific facthas established and supports the reality that vaccines and/or themercury in some of them can and do, in many instances, causethe neurodevelopmental harm that generates the set of symptomsused to diagnose autism. To date, even the largest studieshave failed to find any definitive genetic pattern that is alwaysassociated with autism.

Furthermore, public health officials and vaccine apologistsignore the genetic reality that Thimerosal is a proven teratogenand mutagen that, for decades, has been known to induce geneticharm.6

Given the preceding realities, it may be that many of thegenetic anomalies appearing today may be the result of generations of the
apparently knowing mercury poisoning of babies –first by Calomel (in the
late 1880s to the early 1940s in the U.S.and until
the mid-1950s in Australia) and, more recently (from
the 1930s onward), by Thimerosal in vaccines as well as byThimerosal and other mercury compounds (e.g., phenyl mercuricsalts) in other drugs.

Research scientists (not “Mercury alarmists”) know:

The scientifically sound studies support the “Thimerosal invaccines causes autism” hypothesis and

Reality: Often these families who have become resistant to thestates’ recommended vaccinations and/or the CDC’s recommendedvaccination schedules have adhered to the recommendedchildhood immunization schedule and only began tooppose the current vaccination program after they or their childrenhave actually experienced a serious adverse reaction.

Thus, most of the families who have children who have regressedinto autism have not always been anti-vaccine and, insome cases, still support the giving of some vaccines to children.

Reality: Since the 1990s, the number of children enrolled inspecial education classes has vastly increased for children in theautism spectrum.

Thus, it is clear that most of the increase is real and not relatedto “expanding the diagnosis” or “increased surveillance.”See, for example: California Department of Health and HumanServices, Department of Developmental Services, “AUTISTICSPECTRUM DISORDERS Changes In The California
Caseload An Update: 1999 through 2002,” Sacramento, CA
(April 2003).

Since Thimerosal-derived mercury poisoning has been
proven for many children with an autism diagnosis who havebeen tested for mercury poisoning, there is no longer any needfor the “average person to sift through all the misdirection andmisinformation” that has been and is still being put out by thosewith an overriding interest in maintaining the status quo.

The ever-increasing evidence shows that Thimerosal is amajor causal factor for childhood behavioral and developmentaldisorders, including ADHD and the autism spectrum disorders(ASDs).

Reality: The proofs of causation given in this manuscript, andin particular Section II. Vaccines, IV. Thimerosal, and V.Wakefield/Geier’s Research, and the government’s concessionin Hannah Poling v. Sec. HHS (case #: 02-1466V) discussedin Section III. NVICP, should provide the reader withscientifically sound evidence leading to the firm conclusionthat” Thimerosal-containing vaccines are a major causal factorin autism. Thimerosal in vaccines has been, and still is, a majorcausal factor that underlies most diagnoses of an autism spectrumdisorder as well as many other developmental and childhooddisorders, In addition, there is evidence that MMR vaccineis a causal factor in some cases where a child is subsequentlydiagnosed with regressive autism.

Thus, the reality is that, when administered to developingchildren, vaccines can and do “cause autism.”

Reality: The vaccination programs for vaccines developed inthe late 1800s and the early 1900s for highly infectious and/ordeadly diseases (e.g., the vaccines for smallpox, rabies, diphtheria,tetanus, polio, and measles) have been very successful inminimizing the short- and long-term risks of Americans’ developingthese diseases when Americans are exposed to the indigenous/“native”/“wild” disease strains of the organisms thatcan cause these diseases.

Have both short-term and longer-term risks that have beenconcealed from the American public by collusive actionsbetween the vaccine makers and the federal officialscharged with licensing, approving, recommending, andpromoting the uses for these vaccines.

Among others, these collusive actions include:

Allowing other than sterile saline to be used as the placeboin short-term vaccine adverse-reaction studies to suppressthe relative incidence rates to the point that these relativeadverse-event rates show “no statistically significant” increaseover the “placebo” (that, in some cases, has been allowedto be an experimental vaccine or the vaccine formulationwithout the biological antigens),

Permitting vaccine safety studies to be restricted to a fewdays or, at most, a few of months even though some severeadverse outcomes do not begin to emerge until severalyears after vaccination (e.g., childhood MS 4 years aftervaccination),

Consenting to reductions in the size and number of personsin the phase-III clinical trials that not only reduce the vaccinemakers costs but also reduce the risk that the studywill find the rare but deadly adverse effects that a vaccinemay have,

Allowing surrogate endpoints (e.g., the reactivity of the patient’sblood to animal anti-sera) for specific antibodies tobe used to assess vaccine efficacy instead of requiringcomprehensive testing to establish both general and specificimmunity in those vaccinated that is comparable tothe immunity found in those who have had the disease,

Recommending widespread use of new vaccines long beforethe long-term (at least 10-year) outcomes can be assessedin the trial population, and

Licensing vaccines and recommending their “universal”use in populations that have near-zero risk of contracting adisease (e.g., the hepatitis B vaccine in young children orthe HPV vaccine in non-sexually-active children) or wherethe clinical cases of the disease occur at low rate and arevirtually absent in most demographic segments of U.S.population (e.g., the rotavirus vaccine).

Reality: First, there is no dispute that “vaccination rates arecurrently at an all-time high of greater than 95%.” However,one cannot accurately assess the public support for the vaccinationprogram when the population is being coerced to vaccinateby state laws.

While state laws and regulations requiring vaccination forchildren to attend school do provide for medical, religious (48of 50 states), and philosophical (20 of 50 states) exemptions,many states inappropriately erect barriers of varying difficulty,which impede their citizens from knowing about, or obtaining,any of the available exemptions should said citizens desire to doso.

Reality: For some vaccines, there is a clear and growing bodyof peer-reviewed published evidence that, for these vaccines,the costs, the adverse-outcome risks, lack of effectivenessand/or the costs of even the reported adverse-outcomes outweighthe theoretical benefits from widespread vaccination withthose vaccines.

For example, consider the following vaccines:

The hepatitis B vaccines do not provide long-term immunityfrom contracting hepatitis B when the vaccinated childrenbecome sexually active or IV drug users, and increasetheir long-term risk for childhood MS and other autoimmunediseases. Addressing the hepatitis B issue, Dr. JaneOrient, director of The Association of American Physicians& Surgeons, writes, “For most children, the risk of aserious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than therisk of hepatitis B. Overall, the incidence of hepatitis B inthe U.S. is currently about 4 per 100,000. The risk for mostyoung children is far less; hepatitis B is heavily concentratedin groups at high risk due to occupation, sexualpromiscuity, or drug abuse.”

Influenza vaccines are not effective.7

The chickenpox vaccine appears to cause more harm longtermthan it prevents disease and, even after a second dose,it appears to have a reported efficacy that is less than 75%.

Rotavirus vaccines, including the withdrawn one, giveseveryone inoculated a case of rotavirus, when, in the U.S.population, the clinical cases of the disease occur at lowrates and are mostly confined to those in the lowestincomepopulation segments.

The HPV vaccines appear to be causing significant harm,including death, to some of those vaccinated, but do notappear to provide long-term immunity to the HPV infectionand may not provide any protection from cervical cancer30 years in the future.

The childhood pneumococal vaccine (Prevnar®) has givenrise (or caused a shift) to a strain that is resistant to treatmentand is causing childhood deaths.

A recent outbreak of mumps in 2006 occurred amongsome 6584 college students (aged 18 to 24 years) who hadreceived two vaccine doses, indicates that the mumps vaccinedid not provide protection (New England Journal ofMedicine, 2008; 358:1580–9). Due to lack of effectivenessof the mumps vaccine, Japan no longer administers themumps component of the MMR (measles, mumps andruebella) vaccine.

If nothing else, all of the vaccines that have been introducedand then withdrawn from the market when they caused significantharm (e.g., the RotaShield rotavirus vaccine, the LymeRix

Lyme-disease vaccine, the vaccines containing whole-cell pertussislysates [the DTwP vaccines] when the purified acellularpertussis vaccines where found to be much safer [the DTaP andDtap vaccines], the tetravalent MMR-V vaccine which is producingsignificantly more adverse reactions than MMR and V
[for Varicella] given separately, to name some) clearly indicatethat, for these vaccines, the theoretical benefits did not
evenoutweigh the risks – much less, “far outweigh
those risks”.

At the root of the problem are the words used to describe therisks and the benefits.

Typically, the risks are presented as “theoretical” when, infact, they are real—all that is “theoretical” are the typicallygrossly underestimated rates for the risks.

Moreover, most of the severe risks are continually downplayed(e.g., the death risk to first providers in the recent smallpoxvaccination program) or concealed (e.g., the anaphylacticshock risk from Thimerosal in vaccines) in most of the currentpro-vaccination literature and advertising

Similarly, the benefits are inflated and presented as realwhen, in fact, they are what are theoretical. [Note: Unless anduntil a person is exposed to the microbe that causes the diseasefor which he or she is vaccinated, there is no benefit to vaccinationagainst that agent.]

Moreover, even when exposed, there is no guarantee thatany one of those who have been vaccinated will not get the
disease.

Furthermore, the measurable immune-system responses aftervaccination do not, in most cases, accurately predict a givenperson’s resistance to subsequent disease exposure.

Finally, vaccines that contain live viruses usually give thoseinoculated with one of them a mild case of the disease, which,when the inoculation does not follow the native disease’s exposuremode, induces incomplete immunity at best.

Moreover, in light of the recent (9 November 2007) findingfor the plaintiffs in Poling v. Sec. HHS, a “Thimerosal causesautism” test case in the Autism Omnibus, even the federal governmenthas conceded that Thimerosal in vaccines may be acausal factor for an autism-spectrum-disorder diagnosis (Seedocket text item 17, “Respondent's Report, filed by SECRETARYOF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. Entered:
11/09/2007” [which found in favor of the plaintiffs] and item18, “SCHEDULING ORDER: On or before 11/30/2007, theparties shall contact the undersigned’s chambers and proposethree dates and times for the next status conference in this matterto discuss further proceedings to address damages. Signedby Special Master Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (cc2,) Entered:11/14/2007.”

Given the preceding events as well as the test-cases petitioners’attorneys’ having to request the Autism Omnibus for timeto choose another “Thimerosal causes autism” test case to replaceone of the three in the second group, the “Thimerosal as acausal factor” group, it is clear that the “Respondent’s Report”(item 17), though it did not mention Thimerosal or mercury,found for the petitioners with respect to the original test caseclaim under which it was to be considered in the Autism Omnibus—namely
that “Thimerosal in vaccines was a causal factorin
the diagnosed autism spectrum disorder”—for the child inquestion even though the “Rule 4(c)” report focused on a “mitochondrialdisorder” manifesting as “a regressive encephalopathywith features of autism spectrum disorder” – commonlydiagnosed/labeled as regressive autism.

Interestingly, Hannah Poling’s father, a physician, had publisheda case study of his daughter’s case in February of 2006.

Moreover, since that case study reported that there “was nofamily history of autism or affective, neuromuscular, or hearingdisorders,” and, prior to the vaccines given to her at about 19months of age, her “development was progressing well …,” thelack of evidence of neuromuscular disorder prior to the 19-month
vaccinations she received undermines the implicit claimin the government’s published “Rule 4(c)” case-concessionreport that the mitochondrial disorder diagnosed was fundamentallya genetic factor.

In addition, the published case study seems to support thereality that this child had a diagnosis of regressive autism:

Associated with the vaccines, including those childhoodvaccines (hepatitis B, DTaP, and Hib) that wereThimerosal-preserved at the time she was given them, shehad received from birth (hepatitis B) onwards, and

Precipitated (“significantly aggravated”) by the vaccinationsshe received at about 19 months of age.

Lest the reader think that “underlying mitochondrial disorder”has nothing to do with mercury poisoning by mercury/Thimerosal, the
reader need only consult some of the paperslinking
Thimerosal to the poisoning of mitochondrialpathways:

Reality: Attempts by independent researchers to obtain the underlyingdata sets from the original authors in the epidemiologicalstudies touted by the CDC and other vaccine apologists (except the
2004 Ip et al. study) as supporting the claims of “nolink” have been repeatedly rebuffed. Interestingly, a November2007 paper by Desoto and Hitlan, entitled Blood Levels of MercuryAre Related to a Diagnosis of Autism: A Reanalysis of anImportant Data Set, independently reviewed the basis data fromthe previously published Ip et al. epidemiology study reportingno evidence of a link between the blood levels of mercury andautism. The reanalysis, with which the authors of the originalepidemiological article agreed, found that the original article’sinaccurate conclusions were based on a significant calculationerror and a less-than-appropriate choice of t-tail statistical test.

Thus, no independent analysis has been able to confirm thevalidity, or lack thereof, of the findings reported in the studiesupon which the 2004 IOM committee relied.In
the case of the key U.S. study by Verstraeten et al., CDCofficials have claimed that the original data sets have been“lost.”

Until independent researchers can:

Obtain the complete original data sets and study designsused in these “no link” papers, and

Confirm: a) the study design and data sets used are appropriatefor the study, b) the methods used for the evaluationsare scientifically sound and appropriate, and c) theresults reported are valid,

epidemiological
studies that do not allow their data to be independentlyevaluated should be excluded from any considerationof the evidence linking Thimerosal or MMR to a diagnosis ofany developmental disorder, including any neurodevelopmentaldisorders inside or outside of the autism spectrum.

“ It’s a far piece from the horse-and-buggies of LancasterCounty, Pa., to the cars and freeways of Cook County, Ill.

But thousands of children cared for by Homefirst Health
Servicesin metropolitan Chicago have at least two
things in common withthousands of Amish children in
rural Lancaster: They have neverbeen vaccinated. And
they don't have autism.

‘We have a fairly large practice. We have about 30,000 or
35,000children that we've taken care of over the
years, and I don't thinkwe have a single case of
autism in children delivered by us whonever received
vaccines,’ said Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, Homefirst'smedical director who founded the practice in 1973. Homefirst doctorshave delivered more than 15,000 babies at home, and thousandsof them have never been vaccinated.

The few autistic children Homefirst sees were vaccinated
beforetheir families became patients, Eisenstein
said, ‘I can think of twoor three autistic children
who we've delivered their mother's nextbaby, and we
aren't really totally taking care of that child -- theyhave special care needs. But they bring the younger children to us.

I don't have a single case that I can think of that wasn't
vaccinated.’The autism rate in Illinois public
schools is 38 per 10,000, accordingto state Education
Department data; the Centers for DiseaseControl and
Prevention puts the national rate of autism spectrumdisorders at 1 in 166 -- 60 per 10,000.

‘We do have enough of a sample,’ Eisenstein said. ‘The numbersare too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We're allfamily doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there's nocommunication. It's frightening. You can't touch them. It's notsomething that anyone would miss.’

No one knows what causes autism, but federal health
authoritiessay it isn't childhood immunizations. Some
parents and a small minorityof doctors and
scientists, however, assert vaccines are responsible.

This column has been looking for autism in never-vaccinatedU.S. children in an effort to shed light on the issue. We went toChicago to meet with Eisenstein at the suggestion of a reader, andwe also visited Homefirst's office in northwest suburban RollingMeadows. Homefirst has four other offices in the Chicago area anda total of six doctors.

Eisenstein stresses his observations are not scientific. ‘The
troubleis this is just anecdotal in a sense, because
what if every autisticchild goes somewhere else and
(their family) never calls us or theymoved out of
state?’

In practice, that's unlikely to account for the pronounced
absenceof autism, says Eisenstein, who also has a
bachelor's degree in statistics,a master's degree in
public health and a law degree.

Homefirst follows state immunization mandates, but Illinois
allowsreligious exemptions if parents object based
either on tenetsof their faith or specific personal
religious views. Homefirst doesnot exclude or
discourage such families. Eisenstein, in fact, is authorof the book Don't Vaccinate Before You Educate! and is criticalof the CDC's vaccination policy in the 1990s, when severalnew immunizations were added to the schedule, including HepatitisB as early as the day of birth. Several of the vaccines—Hep Bincluded—contained a mercury-based preservative that has sincebeen phased out of most childhood vaccines in the United States.

Medical practices with Homefirst's approach to immunizationsare rare. ‘Because of that, we tend to attract families that havequestions about that issue,’ said Dr. Paul Schattauer, who has beenwith Homefirst for 20 years and treats ‘at least’ 100 children aweek.

Schattauer seconded Eisenstein's observations. ‘All I know is
inmy practice I don’t see autism. There is no
striking 1-in-166,’ hesaid.”

As far as the inadequacy of surveys, the CDC has used thesame methodology to survey autism rates.

Reality: The chief factors that are undermining the public’sconfidence in the current vaccination program are the growingnumber of vaccine-damaged children and the articles, whichcontinually misrepresent Thimerosal’s proven toxicity and/or itscontinuing presence in U.S. vaccines (see Section IV.Thimerosal).

Vaccine apologists need to look into the mirror and see thatthe misleading statements and prevarications that they are publishingabout the presence of Thimerosal in U.S.-licensed vaccinesare doing more to undermine public confidence in theU.S. vaccination programs than the vaccine critics, the “stubbornvocal minority” of whom these apologists often speak.

As to vaccines being “arguably the single most effectivepublic health measure devised by modern science,” this claim isitself more of a myth and/or misrepresentation where the apparentsuccess of a few vaccination programs is propagandizedto obscure the net harm inherent in the current overall U.S. “nofault” vaccination programs that protect the vaccine makers,government officials and the healthcare providers, but neitheradequately protect the American public nor provide truthfulinformation about the risks and the theoretical benefits of thepreventive vaccines to those who decide whether or not andwhen they and/or their children and/or wards should be vaccinatedfor a given disease for which there is a U.S.-licensed vaccine.

Reality: If there truly were an “anti-vaccine movement” then,like the pro-life movement (often, cast as the anti-abortionmovement), there would be vocal demonstrations by thousandsand tens of thousands of Americans as well as pickets outsideof every medical office that practices vaccination in the U.S.

Since neither of the preceding elements of a movement (vocalmass demonstrations of thousands or tens of thousands ornation-wide medical-office picketing) exists for vaccines andvaccination, there is no real “anti-vaccination movement.”

However, there is a stubborn vocal minority of those whoare pro-vaccine safety and, therefore, oppose use of Thimerosalin vaccines.

An unbiased review of all the recent peer-reviewed toxicological,case, and reviewable epidemiological studies publishedsince 2000 demonstrates that it is plausible that vaccines, ingeneral, and, in particular, the mercury preservative,Thimerosal, can cause autism.

The validity of this pro-vaccine-safety minority’s positionthat, for some, the doses of Thimerosal in vaccines that somechildren received caused the symptoms that characterize autismwas recently boosted when a test case for the theory thatThimerosal in vaccines causes autism scheduled for considerationin the Autism Omnibus proceedings in 2008 was concededby the government medical experts based on the medical recordsand affidavits submitted by the petitioners before the petitioners’experts’ reports were even filed (Hannah Poling v. Sec.HHS, vaccine-injury-compensation-program case 02-1466V).

In addition, this vocal pro-vaccine-safety minority is exposingthe lack of adequate safety data for: a) the long-term effectsof each vaccine, b) the effects of multiple vaccinations at thesame time, c) the reproductive, mutagenic, and carcinogeniceffects of each vaccine, and d) the preservatives and adjuvantsused in vaccines as well as increasing evidence that the nationalimmunization programs for many of the current vaccines areeither: i) not effective (e.g., the chickenpox and human influenzavaccines) or ii) not medically cost effective (e.g., theMerck’s RotaTeq, GlaxoSmithKline’s Rotarix, and Merck’sHPV vaccine).

How can the claims of any minority, vocal or otherwise,threaten the effectiveness of the national vaccination program ifthe vaccines are truly safe and effective, and no adverse reactionsare occurring?

Moreover, though they are significantly underreported, seriousadverse vaccine reactions, including those attributed tosudden-infant-death syndrome (SIDS), are occurring on a largescale.

If there is a decline in confidence in the implied nationalvaccination program, then:

Vaccine apologists who continually falsely assertThimerosal has been removed from all vaccines given tochildren (from before their birth until they reach 18 yearsof age), when it has not, will only have themselves toblame, and

Should childhood diseases increase in the absence of vaccination,given today’s better medicines for treating infectiousdiseases,1. Almost all of our children will recover and have longtermor life-long immunity that far exceeds that providedby most vaccines,2. The public will profit from the decrease in the rates forthe long-term chronic diseases that the Thimerosalcontainingvaccines and other vaccines (e.g., hepatitisB)
can exacerbate, and3. Our children will probably be healthier overall.

Reality: Here prejudicial terms, such as “anti-vaccinationmovement”, have been fabricated to weaken the legitimate criticismof some vaccines.

Moreover, the phrase “poor science and fear-mongering”and negative words: “anti-vaccination” and “hostile” are
obviouslydesigned to slander those with genuine
substantiated criticismsfor certain vaccines and/or
particular U.S. national vaccinationprograms for some
vaccines.

Factually, the pro-vaccine safety advocates simply point toan ever-growing body of peer-reviewed published scientificallysound evidence that clearly establishes that the current U.S.vaccination programs are less safe and the newer vaccines muchless effective than the older vaccines (polio, measles, diphtheria,smallpox and tetanus) continually used as “vaccination success”examples in support of the benefits of vaccination.

NVICP myth #1: Media from public health officials and otherscontinually portray vaccination as virtually harmless andmaintain there is no proof that Thimerosal, or any other part ofany vaccine, has ever caused autism in any way.

Reality: In the scheduled Poling “Thimerosal-autism” caseconceded on November 9, 2007, the HHS appears to have concededthat the vaccines administered to a child, Hanna Poling,significantly contributed to the underlying harm that caused theregressive neurodevelopmental harm that preceded this child’sbeing diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) aswell as, more recently, to the onset of the seizure disorder thatthis child experienced some time after her autism diagnosis.

NVICP myth #2: One court case (such as the Poling case) ishardly significant and cannot properly be used to support that avaccine-autism link exists.

Reality: The Poling Thimerosal/autism case was not a courtcase; it was an administrative proceeding that was concededbefore it was heard and prior to the date the experts were tosubmit their reports.

Based on Hannah’s medical records and the parents affidavits,medical personnel in the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation(DVIC), Department of Health and Human Servicesmade the decision.

Thus, the Poling decision is historic since it is the first of355-plus “Decided,” “Autism” cases that has been found to becompensable in the federal administrative vaccine dispute resolutionsystem.

Apparently, since compensation has not yet been awarded,the Poling case has not yet been added to the “Adjudications”table.A CBS News investigation uncovered at least nine othercases dating back to 1990, where records show the court orderedthe government compensate families whose children developedautism or autistic-like symptoms.

These cases included toddlers who had been called “verysmart” and “impressed” doctors with their “intelligence andcuriosity” until their vaccinations.

Lassiter v. HHS (Case 90-2036V, 1996 U.S. Claims LEXIS216, December 17, 1996) DPT vaccine administered in 1972.Seizure disorder in a young man diagnosed with autism. Thecourt ruled that a diagnosis of idiopathic autism (i.e., autismof unknown origin) was not sufficient to establish a “factorunrelated” that might result in the dismissal of a claim. CliffordShoemaker, counsel for petitioner; LaVon French, SpecialMaster

NVICP myth #3: The Poling case is an isolated case that involvesa rare, underlying mitochondrial disorder that is notrelevant to other vaccine-autism injury cases and this disorderwas likely present from birth.

Reality: A recently published study entitled, “DevelopmentalRegression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child with Autism,”indicates that mitochondrial dysfunction was found in38% of patients with autism and therefore is not unique to thePoling case (Poling JS, Frye RE, Shaffner J, Zimmerman AW.J Child Neurol 2006; 21:170–2).

Also, it is possible to distinguish congenital mitochondrialdisorders from other forms that derive from vaccinations.

Poling/NVICP myth #4: The nine test cases before the vaccinecourts will likely determine the fate of 4,800 other claims madeover the past eight years for compensation for injuries allegedlydue to childhood vaccines.

Reality: Since the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program(NVICP) currently requires each case to be administered“de novo” (from scratch), the outcomes may influence theviews of the Special Masters who hear the “Thimerosal as acausal factor” vaccine cases but they will not “determine thefate” of these cases unless the applicable statute is amended topermit the decision in a decided case (specifically, HannahPoling v. Secretary of HHS) to be directly considered as a controllingprecedent in future cases.

Even then, given the logistics of hearing each case and thenumber of Special Masters available to hear the cases individually,it will take decades for all of the cases to be heard unlessthe current NVICP statutes were to be amended to permit appropriatelyconsolidated groups of cases to be heard together.

However, in cases where the petitioners can establish thattheir neurodevelopmentally damaged child was mercury poisoned(by a valid urine porphyrin-profile-analysis [UPPA] test,chelation challenge, or other means) through administration ofThimerosal-containing vaccines, rather than have the full casepresented in the vaccine court, Poling has clearly shown thatthe federal government has implicitly conceded that injectingsuch vaccines can mercury poison some children causing brainfunction damage leading to a neurodevelopmental disorder thatmanifests as an ASD.

NVICP myth #5:The Federal Government maintains that vaccinesdo not cause autism and that the single Poling case doesnot change their position.

Reality: Public health officials and other vaccine apologists areobviously playing with words here.

Moreover, Hannah Poling was given an autism diagnosisand medical professionals, and not the administrative “vaccinecourt,” decided that vaccinations she received were causativefactors.

Therefore, how can anyone continue to think that the “FederalGovernment” has concluded vaccinations do not cause autism?

NVICP myth #6: Because vaccines are somewhat compulsoryin the United States, a National Vaccine Injury CompensationProgram was established to streamline the process for compensationfor those who are injured due to vaccines (USDOJ 2007).

Reality: Regardless of the information provided by the referencecited, this statement is at odds with the history of the “NationalVaccine Injury Compensation Program” (NVICP).

Factually, Congress established the NVICP on November14, 1986 (Pub. L. 99-660), because the federal government,instead of nationalizing the production of vaccines as the publichealth statutes in Title 42 of the U.S. Code permit, gave in tothe vaccine makers’ demands for protection from being directlysued for the harm that their vaccines, principally the DTwPvaccines and some lots of the polio vaccines, were causing tosome who were vaccinated, rather than forcing the vaccinemakers to either: a) improve the safety of their vaccines or b)turn over the manufacture of and facilities for the making ofvaccines to the federal government.

In return for the legal protections afforded to the vaccinemakers, among other things:

The vaccine makers were supposed to improve the safetyof their vaccines,

The Secretary of HHS was mandated to do all that theapplicable statutes and laws allow to make certain vaccinesafety was improved (see: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300aa-27Mandate for safer childhood vaccines),

A fair, non-adversarial, and speedy administrative claimssystem (the “Vaccine Court”) was established,

A vaccine tax was provided to obtain the revenues requiredto maintain the Vaccine Court, and

Statutes requiring certain recordskeeping practices by thevaccine providers and a vaccine adverse events reportingsystem (VAERS) were established to provide:• The feedback required to provide the records neededfor the vaccine court to judge whether or not the vaccinemay have harmed those vaccinated and• The information required to:• Determine the “in use” safety of vaccines and• Direct the efforts of the responsible HHS agenciesin managing the vaccine licenses and approvalsto increase vaccine safety.

Almost immediately after the NVICP was enacted, both theCongress, driven by its own federal interests and special interests,and those who were responsible for administering theNVICP systems and for overseeing the licensing and approvalof vaccines, driven by similar forces, began to modify the statutesand the regulations and policies required to implement theNVICP in ways that made the NVICP less fair, increasinglyadversarial, and less than rapid.

The first change (Pub. L. 100-203, title IV, Sec.4303(d)(2)(B), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330-222) repealed theprovision for automatic cost-of-living adjustment from theNVICP by striking 42 U.S.C. Sec 300aa-18 which “providedfor annual increases for inflation of compensation under subsections(a)(2) and (a)(4) of section 300aa-15 of this title and civilpenalty under section 300aa-27(b) of this title” – making thecompensation provided increasingly less fair for those injuredand the civil penalties provided for those who break these lawsless punitive.

Administratively, as the cases began to be heard, the governmentadministrators, without even a public hearing, unilaterallyremoved several of the “automatic” compensable injuryindications from the original vaccine injury tables set forth in42 U.S.C. Sec. 300aa-14. Vaccine Injury Table – making theNVICP more adversarial.

Moreover, the lawyers of the U.S. Department of Justicewho were assigned to represent the federal government as respondentin the vaccine injury cases, driven by the policies oftheir appointed administrators, became increasingly adversarialin contesting every aspect of these cases – making cases moreadversarial and their administration anything but rapid.

Thus, as the backlog and the Autism Omnibus demonstrate,though the NVICP may have been “established to streamlinethe process for compensation for those who are injured due tovaccines (USDOJ 2007),” today’s NVICP is anything butstreamlined.

NVICP myth #7: The lawyers for those claiming that vaccinescaused their children’s autism put on pathetic performanceswith transparently shoddy science, while the other side marshalledgenuine experts and put forth an impressive case.

Reality: The causal link has been established betweenThimerosal exposure and sub-acute mercury poisoning thatmanifests as symptoms and the set of symptoms that are used inthe diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders, including theautism spectrum disorders and others (e.g., tics and stuttering).

Moreover, the federal government, in Hannah Poling v.Sec. HHS, has directly conceded that the vaccinations HannahPoling received at about 19 months of age were significantcausal factors in Hannah’s diagnosed autism disorder as well asthe medical mitochondrial dysfunction and seizures that thesevaccinations caused and/or triggered.

In addition, there exist a body of non-autism vaccine-injurycases where the award was for neurodevelopmental harm characterizedas encephalopathies (see Poling/NVICP myth #2).

Thus, it should be obvious that reality is the opposite of themyth; and the myth’s anonymous “genuine experts” used medicalcant rather than medical science to support their assertions.

NVICP myth #8: If the petitioners win these test cases despitethe evidence, it will open the floodgates for the rest of the 4,800petitioners. This will likely bankrupt the Vaccine Injury CompensationProgram and will also risk our vaccine infrastructure.Pharmaceutical companies will be reluctant to subject themselvesto the liability of selling vaccines if even the truth cannotprotect them from lawsuits.

Reality: Factually, if “the petitioners win these test cases,”then, as in the conceded “Thimerosal” test case, the petitionerswill win because of the evidence and not “despite the evidence.”

Moreover, since the National Vaccine Injury CompensationProgram requires each case to be heard individually and thereare only a limited number of special masters and court roomsavailable for all claims, this reviewer finds that, unless the controllingstatutes are changed or the vaccine court is greatly expanded,no more than about 50 cases in the pending “autism”backlog could be heard each year.

Given the current hearing limitations, it is obvious that thephrasing “will open the floodgates” is a misrepresentation becauseno more than 50 cases a year is more of a “trickle” than a“flood.”

Since: a) the Vaccine Compensation fund is so large thateven the paltry interest the federal government pays is currentlymore than adequate to pay all existing settled claims, the cost ofoperating the vaccine court, and costs of the cases settled in agiven year on each vaccine, b) no more than 50 “autism” casesa year would be “settled,” and c) the vaccine tax can easily beincreased, the concern expressed in this misrepresentation is, atbest, misplaced.

With respect to the statement: “Pharmaceutical companieswill be reluctant to subject themselves to the liability of sellingvaccines if even the truth cannot protect them from lawsuits,”consider these observations:

When the truth comes to light, and the vaccine makers areproven to have knowingly failed to prove their vaccineswere safe as required by law and were knowingly distributingadulterated vaccines and other drugs, then, when theapplicable criminal RICO statutes are invoked, as theyshould be, the federal government should:

Seize these vaccine makers and all their assets, and

Then operate these vaccine makers as not-for-profit firmswhere the profits are used to pay for the harm done untilall claims are paid

In addition, the federal government should also appropriatelyprosecute all of those who participated in this racket (includinggovernment officials, health officials, and vaccineapologists).

As those who were engaged in, assisting, or a party to, thisracket are convicted they should be permanently debarred fromworking in any capacity in any FDA-regulated industry or inthe federal government, and, as restitution, in addition to anyfines levied, all those persons convicted of actively participatingin any aspect of this racket should be sentenced to tend to thoseinstitutionalized individuals who have been directly harmed bythis racket for an appropriate number of years.

Thimerosal myth #1: It is the quantity of a substance that establisheswhether or not it is toxic. There is little doubt, and nocontroversy, that mercury, the major component of Thimerosal,is a powerful neurotoxin, or poison to the brain. However, toxicityis always a matter of dose. Everything becomes toxic in ahigh enough dose; even too much water or vitamin C can killyou. So the real question is whether the amount of mercurygiven to children in vaccines containing Thimerosal wasenough to cause neurological damage.

Reality: Overall toxicity is a matter of the specific dose and itspersistence in the parts of the body in a form that is toxic tothose organs, tissues, and/or fluids in which it is present at alevel high enough to exert its toxic effects.

Thimerosal (49.55 wt.-% mercury) is a highly toxic mercurycompound that, at levels below 1 part-per-million, is also teratogenic,mutagenic, carcinogenic and an immune system disruptorin humans unless, which has not been done, thatThimerosal-containing formulation has been proven safe to theapplicable federal standard minimum (“sufficiently nontoxic…”[as set forth in 21 C.F.R. Sec. 610.15(a)]).

Vaccines with “trace” amounts of Thimerosal, by definition,“contain less than 1 microgram of mercury (Hg) per dose(http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm).” For example,consider that the reduced-Thimerosal flu vaccine with0.0002% mercury is equivalent to 1 microgram [μg] of Hg per0.5 mL, or 2 μg of Hg per mL, which is the same as 2000 μgper liter; or 2000 parts per billion [ppb][2].
0.5 parts per billion (ppb) mercury has been shown to killhuman neuroblastoma cells (Parran et al., Toxicol Sci 2005;86:132–40).
2 ppb mercury is the U.S. EPA limit for drinking water(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#mcls).
20 ppb mercury destroys neurite membrane structures(Leong et al., Neuroreport 2001;: 12733–7).
200 ppb mercury is the level in liquid that the EPA classifiesas hazardous waste (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/mercury/regs.htm#hazwaste).
25,000 ppb mercury is the concentration of mercury inmulti-dose, Hepatitis B vaccine vials, administered at birth from1991-2001 in the U.S.
50,000 ppb mercury is the concentration of mercury inmulti-dose DTP and Haemophilus B vaccine vials, administered8 times in the 1990’s to children at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months ofage and currently “preservative” level mercury in multi-doseflu, meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines.

In in vitro studies, Thimerosal has been found to be toxic torapidly dividing human neuron at levels below 0.01 ppm—leves that are more than 10,000 times lower than the 100 ppmlevel in most Thimerosal-preserved influenza vaccines..

From the published work of Burbacher et al. in developingbaby monkeys,12 the data indicates that, on average, up to about10% of the initial mercury from the overall dose of Thimerosalended up in the baby monkey’s brains when they were sacrificedand the level of mercury (total and “inorganic”) wasmeasured on brain tissue.

Moreover, because:

Thimerosal (49.55 weight-% mercury), Thimerosal’s primarymercury-containing solvolysis products (ethylmercurychloride [75.66 weight-% mercury] and ethylmercuryhydroxide [81.28 weight-% mercury]), and its final metabolites(tissue-incorporated “inorganic” mercury [biocomplexedHg2+]) have been proven to be highly toxic inshort-term (≤ 2 days) studies using various human tissuesand cells even at mercury levels in the range from < 0.0001ppm to about 0.01 ppm,

Recent peer-reviewed published research studies8 haveclearly established that some young children with a diagnosisin the autism spectrum are mercury poisoned andtheir principal mercury exposure was from the Thimerosalpreservedvaccines and other drugs that they and, in somecases, their mothers’ received and passed to them duringpregnancy and breast feeding, and

Apparently, in Hanna Poling v. Sec. HHS (02-1466V), a“Thimerosal as a causal factor” test case in the vaccinecourt’s Autism Omnibus, the federal government has indirectlyconceded that the Thimerosal in the vaccines HannahPoling received was a causal factor in the neuroencephalopathy-generated autism spectrum disorder symptomsthat characterize Hannah Poling’s vaccine injuries.

Thus, there is no question that Thimerosal can cause subacutemercury poisoning in some children injected withThimerosal-containing vaccines to the point that the mercury-poisoned child will exhibit mercury-poisoning symptomsthat include that set of symptoms used to diagnoseautism spectrum disorders that include mitochondrial dysfunction(including hyptonia).

Moreover, a November 2007 paper13 by Desoto and Hitlan(entitled “Blood Levels of Mercury Are Related to a Diagnosisof Autism: A Reanalysis of an Important Data Set”):

Independently reviewed the basis data from a previouslypublished Ip et al. epidemiology study14 that had reportedno evidence of a link between the blood levels of mercuryand autism and

Found that the original article’s inaccurate conclusionswere based on a significant calculation error and a lessthan-appropriate choice of t-tail statistical test

[Note: The authors of the original epidemiological articlehave agreed that the calculation in question was in error.]

Thus, the real question is when are vaccine apologists goingto cease raising questions that have been answered and startadmitting that Thimerosal-containing vaccines have mercurypoisoned and are continuing to mercury-poison our children andourselves to the point that some children and some adults aresub-acutely mercury poisoned and exhibit those symptoms thatare used to in the diagnosis of a wide variety of neurodevelopmental(e.g., the autistic disorder, pervasive developmental disorder– not otherwise specified [PDD-NOS], Asperger’s, attentiondeficit disorder [ADD] and attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder [ADHD]) and other disorders (asthma, diabetes, obesity,multiple sclerosis (MS), and food allergies) in our children,and, for those old enough to miss the prenatal and early childhoodThimerosal-poisoning, “dementias” (e.g., Alzheimer’s) inourselves.

In addition, these significant differences in the findings ofthe independent reanalysis of:

The underlying data sets in a study assessing the link betweenblood mercury level and the diagnosis of an autismspectrum disorder (see footnote 14, where the original researchersprovided the data) as well as

The underlying MMR and autism cases data from Denmark(see footnote 30, where the data was obtained fromgovernmental officials and not the original authors)points to a fundamental problem with the epidemiological studiestouted by public health officials and other vaccine apologistsas evidence of “no link” between Thimerosal (or MMR) andneurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

Individuals should be critical of those vaccines that have notbeen proven safe, are not truly effective, and/or are not truly, atleast, societally cost-effective when the costs of the harmcaused by these vaccines are included in the cost calculations.

Thimersoal myth #2: Those in the anti-vaccination movementbelieve that it was the use of Thimerosal in childhood vaccinesthat led to the apparent autism epidemic beginning in the 1990s.

Reality: Factually, the pro-drug-safety group understands thatthe toxicological and case-control evidence has established15that the use of Thimerosal (in vaccines, serums and some otherdrugs) and phenyl mercuric salts or other mercury compoundsin some serums and other drugs are collectively a major causalfactor in childhood behavioral and developmental disorders.

Thus, mercury poisoning has been and is a major causal factorin those who have been diagnosed with an autism spectrumdisorder (ASD), as well as in several disorders and diseasesthat, prior to 1970, were virtually non-existent in children (e.g.,childhood asthma and type-II diabetes) or rare (an ASD, wherereported incidence rate estimates were on the order of 1 – 5 in10,000), and have since become epidemic (occurring at a rate >1 in 1,000 children).

These are all childhood medical conditions where mercurypoisoning has been shown to be an actual or a probable causalfactor.

However, based on the current data, the onset of thesechildhood disease epidemics occurred in the late 1980s –though, the healthcare establishment may have “missed” theseepidemic increases until the 1990s and, in some cases has continuedto deny the fact that these increases are both epidemicand vaccination related into the mid-2000s.

Furthermore, autism and its related conditions are complexdisorders that are defined by a set of abnormal behaviors andsocial-skill deficits that are mistakenly represented to be solelyneurological impairments (neurodevelopmental disorders) whenmost having such diagnoses also have other comorbidities.

Finally, in the 1990's, the number of autism-spectrum diagnosessignificantly increased, from between one and three tomore than fifteen cases per ten thousand, though the U.S. underascertainment-corrected maximum incidence is/was probablybetween one and three per hundred (1 to 3%).

Thimerosal myth #3: During the 1990s, the number of vaccinesgiven in the routine childhood schedule increased. Thisled some to assume, or at least speculate, causation from correlation--perhaps the vaccines or something in them created this‘epidemic’ of autism.”

Reality: This assertion understates the change because notonly did the “number of vaccines given” increase but also thenumber of doses of vaccines containing Thimerosal more thantripled and, in addition, a second dose was added for the MMRvaccine.

Consider

The epidemiological evidence that has clearly shown thatthere is a Thimerosal-autism link when the population statisticalprobability studies (epidemiological studies) arescientifically sound,

The clear evidence of Thimerosal’s toxicity at levels below1 ppm in developing children, and

The correspondence between the symptoms of sub-acutemercury poisoning as well as the symptoms exhibited bychildren with a diagnosis in the autism spectrum16– issues addressed,
in detail, in
http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/Thimerosal_Causes_Mercury_Poisoning.pdf(lastvisited on 5 Mar. 2008) of the primary author’s 2005 article,“FEAR NOT Vaccinations don’t give children autism. Theysave children from disease.”

Thimerosal myth #4: The dose of mercury in Thimerosalpreservedvaccine with a Thimerosal level of 0.01% does notexceed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits.

Reality: First of all, no safe dose has been established by anyagency or published toxicological study for the level ofThimerosal that is safe to inject into a developing child.

Moreover, since some are allergic to Thimerosal to the degreethat very small doses can induce anaphylactic shock, it isclear that there is no dose of Thimerosal that is safe (“sufficientlynontoxic …”) to inject into all developing children.

With respect to the EPA limit for ingested mercury, thisclaim could only be true when the administer dose or doseswere averaged over several months.

The problem with this approach can be illustrated by thefollowing example: “You can take two Tylenol® a day for 60days and you will be fine. But if you took 120 Tylenol in oneday, that’s a lethal dose and you’ll probably die.”

Finally, even government officials have conceded that theamount of mercury in a 0.25-mL dose of a Thimerosalpreservedvaccine (delivering 12.5 micrograms of mercury)exceeds the EPA’s recommended daily ingestion intake maximum(0.1 microgram of mercury per kilogram of body weight)unless the baby receiving this dose weighs more than 125 kilograms(275.6 pounds) or, for children receiving a 0.5-mL doseof such vaccines, 250 kilograms (551.2 pounds)!

Thimerosal myth #5: In addition to the mercury contained invaccines, the load of mercury in the mother from other environmentalsources as well as from seafood should also be considered.

Reality: While it is agreed that the post-natal load of mercuryshould be considered with other mercury-containing drugstaken by the child’s mother, however, this consideration shouldmore specifically focus on the mercury dose that is transferredfrom the mother to the fetus (which, during pregnancy, has beenestimated, based on animal studies, to be about 80% of the dosegiven to the mother17 and depends on the developing child’sweight at the time the mother is given a Thimerosal-containingvaccine or any other Thimerosal-containing drug (e.g., until thelate 1990s, RhoGAM [a Rho-D serum given to Rh-negativemothers where the father is or may be Rh positive to protect thedeveloping child from the adverse effects of Rh incompatibility],or some nasal sprays, eye and ear drops [and topical antisepticssolutions, creams, and gels until 2002].)

Except for a heavy fish eater, fish consumption is not a majorcontributor because, if it were a major factor, then autismwould have been “discovered” at least 100 years earlier than itwas.

17 The monitoring of mercury in maternal human hair during pregnancyhas found that the fetus absorbs mercury from the mother.

Moreover, the other sources of mercury exposures availableto children developing in utero and to newborns include, inorder of importance, the mercury from their mother’s amalgamfillings, the mercury in breast milk for nursing children, and themercury in the air (for babies living down plume from coalfiredpower plants, crematoriums, cement plants, diaphragmcellchlor-alkali plants, and/or exposed to rooms where there ismetallic mercury from a previously broken thermometer and/ora broken fluorescent fixture), and water (in instances wherethere is a non-zero level of mercury and/or methylmercury hydroxide).

Furthermore, a published study18 reviewing the mercuryexposures of developing children born in the late 1990s andearly 2000s estimated that about 50% of all the mercury towhich fully vaccinated infants were exposed came from routinelyrecommended Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines.

Worse, the vaccine-mercury exposures were from bolusdoses directly injected into the child in a manner that bypassesthe mercury-sequestering compounds (metallothioneins) foundin the gut that reduce the absorption of ingested mercury by thebody.

Thus, absent Thimerosal and other mercury compounds invaccines and other drugs, the incidence for “autism” would bein the <1 in 10,000 range, as it was before Thimerosalpreservedserums and vaccines and other drugs containingThimerosal and other mercury compounds were marketed withoutthe requisite proofs of safety.

As evidence of the reality of the proceeding, one need onlyreview the literature for Pink disease that appeared in the U.S.the late 1800s, reached epidemic levels in the early 1900s (witha reported peak incidence rate of about 1 in 500), and, coincidently,“disappeared” after the Calomel-laced teething powders19were withdrawn from the U.S. market in the early1940s.20

Like the neurodevelopmental disorders, including those inthe autism spectrum, that are linked to the sub-acute mercurypoisoning by Thimerosal in some who are administered vaccinesand other drugs containing it, Pink disease was a “causeunknown” disease, according to the U.S. healthcare establishment’ssteadfast claims, when Calomel-containing drugs werebeing widely used.

In the late 1950s, a decade after it was removed from theU.S. market, the medical establishment finally began to admit,what the toxicologists had been finding for decades: Calomel isa poisonous mercury compound that was the causal agent inPink disease.

18 Bingham M, Copes R. Thimerosal in vaccines Balancing the risksof adverse effects with the risk of vaccine-preventable disease.Drug Safety 2005; 28(2):89–101.
19 These teething powders contained up to 25% Calomel (chemically,mercurous chloride, Hg2Cl2; 84.98% mercury by weight]) and,“coincidently” like Thimerosal in the organic-mercury realm, wasalso marketed as a “special” form of inorganic mercury andclaimed to be safe without any toxicological proof of safety.
20 In Australia, Pink disease continued to be diagnosed until the late1950s when the Calomel-containing teething powders were finallywithdrawn from the Australian market.

Though the characteristic visual symptoms that gave thePink disease its name, bright pinkish gray palms of the handand soles of the feet, are uncommon in those with a diagnosis inthe autism spectrum, the general symptoms for Pink disease aresimilar in nature to those for the autism spectrum.

Moreover, were today’s children who have an autism diagnosisand “pink” palms and “soles” to be seen by a physicianpracticing in the early 1920s, the odds are good that many ofsuch children would have been diagnosed with Pink disease.

Interestingly, how coincidental was it that, just as there wasa public furor building over the Calomel in teething powders inthe1930s and shortly before the manufacturers “decided” towithdraw the Calomel-laced teething powders and other medicines,Thimerosal was introduced in antiseptics and as a “preservative”in serums and vaccines – also without any real proofof safety and with specious proof of effectiveness as an antiseptic.21

Such marketing coincidences (Thimerosal in/Calomel out)seem to be events orchestrated by those who also stood to gainfrom the continuing the sub-acute mercury-poisoning of babies,which increases not only the short-term medical customer basein the affected children but also, because it causes many of themto develop life-long “chronic” diseases, increases the numberof times these customers will need to be seen, treated, and, inmost cases, prescribed medicines.

Thimerosal myth #6: Those who support a Thimerosal/autismlink argue that some children may have a specific inability tometabolize mercury, and perhaps these are the children whobecome autistic.

Reality: The above statement is much too simplistic.

Factually, those children:

Who have an innately reduced capability to excrete mercury,and/or

Whose capability to excrete mercury has been impaired byother factors, including drugs (e.g., acetoaminophen andmany antibiotics)—children who often have some evidenceof illness, like irritability, or have some other diagnosedinfection (e.g., an ear infection) when theThimerosal-containing vaccines and other drugs were administered—and/or malnutrition (e.g., a diet that containslittle or no cysteine)

have a greater risk of being mercury poisoned to the point that
they exhibit the set of symptoms that are used to diagnose these
children with:

Thimerosal myth #7: Fear over Thimerosal and autism wasgiven a huge boost by journalist David Kirby with his bookEvidence of Harm (Kirby 2005).

Reality: Most vaccine apologists use the word “Fear” when theword “Concern” is clearly the appropriate choice.

Factually, David Kirby’s 2005 book, Evidence of Harm:Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy,has raised and is raising public awareness and concernabout the link between Thimerosal in vaccines and autism.

However, the recent Poling case and the publicity it has receivedas well as the recent efforts by celebrities with mercury-poisonedchildren (e.g., Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey) appearto have done more to raise the general public’s interest and hasattracted widespread interest in the mainstream media to agreater extent than David Kirby’s book.

Thimerosal myth #8: Evidence of Harm is an example of reportingthat grossly misrepresents the science and the relevantinstitutions. Moreover, in the last two years, the evidence hasbeen piling up that Thimerosal does not cause autism.

Reality: As the preceding references clearly indicate, the unbiasedevidence has been accumulating since the 1930s thatThimerosal-containing serums and other drug products, includingvaccines, do cause the sub-acute mercury poisoning, whichmanifests as a neuroencephalopathy and, in some cases, producesclinical symptoms that are characteristic of autism spectrumdisorders.

Moreover, this evidence has “piled up” to the point that eventhe Secretary of Health and Human Services conceded one ofthe three “Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism” test casesoriginally scheduled to be heard in the Autism Omnibus in 2008(see Hannah Poling v. Sec. HHS [02-1466V], case entries“17” and “18”) in 2007, before the case was heard and evenbefore the experts’ reports were scheduled to be filed.

Since the government’s reasons for conceding this vaccineinjury case cite mitochondrial dysfunction, a condition forwhich Thimerosal is a proven causative factor22 (see also footnote4), either the government is conceding that Thimerosal invaccines was a causal factor or, worse for the current vaccinationprograms, that all of the many vaccines that Hannah Pollingreceived were causal factors.

Thimerosal myth #9: There have now been a number of epidemiologicaland ecological studies that have all shown no correlationbetween Thimerosal and autism (Parker 2004 and Doja2006). The current consensus holds that there is no real autismepidemic, just an artifact of how the diagnosis is made. If thereis no epidemic, there is no reason to look for a correlation betweenThimerosal and autism. This has been backed up by TheInstitute of Medicine, which has also reviewed all the availableevidence (both epidemiological and toxicological) and concluded that the evidence does not support the conclusion thatThimerosal causes autism (IOM 2004).”

Reality: Since the “number of epidemiological and ecologicalstudies” and “the current consensus” are not scientificallysound proofs of causation or of the lack of causation, it is suggestedthat the reader study the case-control studies (see footnote8) that have established that, in a majority of cases:

• Mercury poisoning from Thimerosal is the major causalfactor in autism and• There is a fairly good, statistically valid correlation betweenthe degree of mercury poisoning found and the degreeof neurodevelopmental damage that a child with thediagnosis in the autism spectrum has as well as the severityof the harm.

Moreover, toxicological studies in animals and monkeys aswell as, more recently, in children with a diagnosis in the autismspectrum have confirmed the role of mercury poisoning inthese disorders.

Thimerosal myth #10: Especially damning for the Thimerosalhypothesis are the recent studies that clearly demonstrate thatearly detection of autism is possible long before the diagnosis isofficially made. Part of the belief that vaccines may cause autismis driven by the anecdotal observation by many parentsthat their children were normal until after they were vaccinated—autism is typically diagnosed around age two or threeyears. However, more careful observations indicate that signs ofautism are present much earlier, even before twelve months ofage, before exposure to Thimerosal (Mitchell 2006).

Reality: Since the 2002 CDC recommendation23 to vaccinatewomen pregnant during the flu season, when feasible,Thimerosal-containing vaccines have been being indirectlygiven to the developing child in utero whenever the child’smother is injected with a Thimerosal-containing flu-shot vaccine,which today starts during the first trimester of pregnancywhen the fetus may weigh only a few grams.

Moreover, until recently, Thimerosal-containing vaccineswere being given to some children at birth (e.g., the first dosehepatitis B shot—as of January 30, 2007 GlaxoSmithKline wasissued an FDA license for a no-Thimerosal formulation; previously,the trace Thimerosal EnergixB by GlaxoSmithKline had<0.5μg mercury per 0.5mL dose or <1 ppm, equivalent to<1000 ppb) and, even if the mother chooses the current “noThimerosal” early childhood vaccines for her child,

• The CDC, by issuing recommendations that do not ban theuse of Thimerosal-preserved vaccines in children of anyage (e.g. Tetanus toxoid, meningococcal), and• The FDA, by continuing to approve Sanofi-Aventis’Thimerosal-preserved Fluzone formulation for use in childrenas young as 6 months,

permit Thimerosal-preserved influenza shots to be given tochildren at 6 and 7 months of age—delivering a total of 50 microgramsof Thimerosal (25 micrograms of mercury).

Thus, even today’s child can easily be exposed to 100 microgramsof Thimerosal (50 micrograms of mercury) from vaccinesby 7 months of age.

Moreover, because the developing child being exposed to a50-microgram dose of Thimerosal in utero (from the mother’sbeing given a Thimerosal-preserved flu shot) may weigh lessthan 1% of the weight of full-term child, the potential for harmmay easily exceed that by the post-partum child by a factorgreater than 100.

In addition, recent studies starting with evaluations at 18months lost three quarters of those initially classified as possiblebeing in the autism spectrum by the time of their thirdevaluation.24

Since:• These early evaluations only see “signs of autism” but, asthe article cited shows, do not reliably diagnose autism untilmonths later, and• Thimerosal exposure can begin at up to 8+ months beforebirth,

it is obvious that writer’s “before exposure to Thimerosal,” astaken from “Mitchell, S., J. Brian, L. Zwaigenbaum, W. Roberts,P. Szatmari, I. Smith, and S. Bryson. 2006,” is a blatantmisrepresentation of the current realities vis-à-vis Thimerosalexposure.

Thimerosal myth #11: Some have argued that the Thimerosalin prenatal vaccines may be to blame, but recent evidence hasshown a negative correlation there as well (Miles 2007).

Reality: The quoted study is confounded by significant biasessuch as: a) the exclusion, on one pretext or another, of most ofthose with the most significant adverse effects and b) the inclusionof Rh-negative mothers who received “no Thimerosal”Rho(D) serum injections (all receiving Rho(D) after 2001)combined with the group of mothers who did receive Thimerosal-preserved Rho(D) injections.

As with any research that lacks a sound foundation, thisstudy has been thoroughly discredited by several independentresearchers.25,26.

Thimerosal myth #12: What we have are the makings of asolid scientific consensus. Multiple independent lines of evidenceall point in the same direction: vaccines in general, andThimerosal in particular, do not cause autism, which ratherlikely has its roots in genetics. Furthermore, true autism ratesare probably static and not rising.

Reality: This statement is again a classic example of doublespeakwhere it is asserted:

“What we have are the makings of a solid scientific consensus,”which, like having the makings (ingredients) for acherry pie, actually means there is no scientific consensusbecause having the ingredients does not make a cherry pie,

“Multiple independent lines of evidence all point in thesame direction:” when all of the evidence cited is generallyfrom only one line of evidence—statistical analysis ofheavily pruned and/or intentionally misdesigned epidemiologicaland/or ecological studies of the medical records ofsome group of individuals,

“vaccines in general, and Thimerosal in particular, do notcause autism, which rather likely has its roots in genetics,”which is a classic example of misstatement and misdirectionbecause the toxicological and clinical studies, previouslycited, have clearly shown that the symptoms causedby the sub-acute mercury poisoning of children byThimerosal in vaccines include the set of symptoms usedto diagnosis autism in children in the autism spectrum.Factually, the estimated rates that do exist:

Are for: disjoint groups (e.g., the CDC’s 8-year olds in 6sites and then in 14 sites) and/or times (e.g., the CDC’s 8-year olds surveyed in 2000 and 2002) or,

Are not corrected for underascertainment and the populationchange (in children) in the area from which the data isbeing reported (e.g., the California data where all that isroutinely reported is cases by age group and not cases pernumber of children by birth year).However, from these retrospective estimates, it is clear that adisorder that had an estimated “<3 in 10,000” rate in the mid-1970s has increased until the current retrospective estimates forthe rates in the early 1990s are at least “66 in 10,000” and mayeasily have been more than “100 in 10,000” (> 1%).Moreover, since:

Thimerosal has not been removed from all vaccines andmedicines,

Contrary to the 1999 promise, the FDA has approved moreThimerosal-preserved vaccines, and

The CDC has recommended administering one of thoseThimerosal-preserved vaccines, the Thimerosal-preservedinfluenza vaccine, for pregnant women and babies,federal officials have continued the knowing mercury poisoningof children and adults while touting the removal of Thimerosalas a preservative from most of the other early childhood vaccinesand proclaiming these removals as if they were the removalof Thimerosal from all vaccines – classic examples ofmisdirection and deceit.

Thimerosal myth #13: With the scientific evidence so solidlyagainst the mercury hypothesis of autism, proponents maintaintheir belief largely through the generous application of conspiracythinking.

Reality: Here, as the clinical and case evidence previouslycited shows, this statement begins with a misrepresentation,“With the scientific evidence so solidly against the mercuryhypothesis of autism.”Compounding this distortion, the statement then opines:“proponents maintain their belief largely through the generousapplication of conspiracy thinking.”

Factually, those who have and are investigating the interactionsamong government agencies, elected officials, health officials,academics, the vaccine manufactures, their consultants,and those who continue to defend the use of Thimerosal as apreservative without the requisite proof of safety have determinedthat there is clear evidence of prior and continuing collusionamong those parties to directly or indirectly violate applicablefederal laws (regulations) and statutes that place an absolute,non-dischargeable duty upon the vaccine makers to provethat the Thimerosal used as a preservative is safe to the legalstandard minimum.

To the extent that this collusion exists, it appears to this reviewerthat all those involved are knowingly participating in aracket and may, therefore, be subject to the applicable criminalprovisions of the RICO (Racketeering, Influencing, and CorruptOrganizations) statutes as set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. Sec 1961 etseq.

In addition, because these vaccines and other drug productshave not been appropriately proven to be safe, all of these areadulterated drugs under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 351(a)(2(B).

Because these are adulterated drugs, shipping them intocommerce is a prohibited act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 331 Prohibitedacts) and subjects the drugs to removal from the market and thedrug manufacturers and other accountable persons to the sanctionsset forth in 21 U.S.C. Sec. 333. Penalties.

Thus, many individuals have come to the conclusion that theevidence appears to establish, at a minimum, collusion amongthe parties.

Thimerosal myth #14: Despite the lack of evidence for anysafety concern, the FDA decided to remove all Thimerosal fromchildhood vaccines, and by 2002 no new childhood vaccineswith Thimerosal were being sold in the U.S. This was not anadmission of prior error, as some mercury proponents claimed;instead, the FDA was playing it safe by minimizing human exposureto mercury wherever possible. The move was also likelycalculated to maintain public confidence in vaccines.

Reality: No part of this myth is factually accurate.

Factually, in July of 1999, the federal government issued apress release27 (entitled Thimerosal in Vaccines: A Joint Statementof the American Academy of Pediatrics and the PublicHealth Service, which was posted on the CDC’s Morbidity andMortality Weekly Reporter [MMWR] web site), and, in part,states:

“… because any potential risk is of concern, the Public HealthService (PHS), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),and vaccine manufacturers agree that Thimerosal-containingvaccines should be removed as soon as possible. Similar conclusionswere reached this year in a meeting attended byEuropean regulatory agencies, European vaccine manufacturers,and FDA, which examined the use of Thimerosal-containingvaccines produced or sold in European countries.”

27 Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report 1999 July 9; 48(26):563–5.[Note: The original press release issued July 7, 1999] This announcementcan be found searching http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/.

First, all the parties agreed there was a “potential risk”—since Thimerosal is known to be toxic to humans at tissue levelsbelow 1 ppm.

Second, the decision to remove the Thimerosal-containingvaccines was a decision that only the manufacturers of vaccinescould implement.

Third, under the Public Health Act (42 U.S.C.), the FDA,acting on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, could have (and, by2007, should have) revoked the U.S.-licenses for the manufacturingof all Thimerosal-containing vaccines, but, as far as thisreviewer can ascertain, the FDA has yet to revoke any of thesemanufacturing licenses.

Fourth, as of today, about 9 years later, Thimerosal-containingvaccines can be, and are still being, given to childrenwithout proof of safety to the applicable safety standard, “sufficientlynontoxic …” (21 C.F.R. Sec. 610.15(a)) as any carefulreview of “Table 3” on the appropriate FDA webpage,http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/Thimerosal.htm (last visitedon 5 April 2008) will show, and the permissible age ranges forthe use of each vaccine will confirm.

Fifth, with respect to the myth’s claim, “by 2002 no newchildhood vaccines with Thimerosal were being sold in theU.S.,” this is also false because, among other Thimerosal-containingvaccines that could be given to children in 2002, theThimerosal-preserved influenza vaccine, which, by its nature, isa new vaccine every year, was effectively knowingly added tothe recommended vaccination schedule for pregnant women aswell as to the recommended childhood vaccination schedule inApril of 200228 at a time when all doses of the influenza vaccineapproved for “healthy children aged 6–23 months” wereThimerosal preserved.

Sixth, compounding the harm, in April of 2002, the CDC’srecommendation that the Thimerosal-preserved influenza vaccinebe given to pregnant women who would be in their secondand third trimesters of their pregnancies during the influenzaseason, thereby knowingly recommending the Thimerosal andmercury poisoning the developing child in utero when the riskof harm is even greater than it is postpartum and the resultspublished in 197729 clearly found that Thimerosal-preservedinflu vaccines that were given to pregnant women significantlyincreased (with a hospital-standardized relative risk of 2.0 orhigher) their children’s risk of serious birth defects (cleft palate[RR = 7.1], microcephaly [RR = 2.3], and pyloric stenosis [RR= 2.0]).

If, as the statement asserts, the FDA were “playing it safe byminimizing human exposure to mercury wherever possible,”then, the FDA would have acted to ban the use of Thimerosaland any other mercury compounds in all medicines and medicalprocedures, since all such uses are unnecessary because othercompounds can be, have been, and are being used as an inprocesssterilants and/or a finished-packaged-product preservative,the only areas where the FDA has authorized the use ofThimerosal.

Furthermore, had the U.S. government truly wished to safenU.S.-licensed vaccines, as the National Vaccine Injury CompensationProgram (NVICP) mandates (see 42 U.S.C. Sec.300aa-27. Mandate for safer childhood vaccines), then theuse of a preservative in vaccines would have been outlawed andall vaccines would have been required to be packaged in unitdosecontainers.

However, except to ban the use of Thimerosal and othermercury compounds in over-the-counter topical antiseptics andvaginal contraceptives, the FDA has steadfastly refused to:

• Ban the use of Thimerosal and other mercury compoundsin any medicine, or• Provide or demand from the vaccine manufacturers, scientificallysound and appropriate toxicological proof that alluses of Thimerosal in medicine are “sufficiently nontoxic…” as required by law.

Since, regardless of who made the promise to removeThimerosal-containing vaccines from the U.S. market, thispromise has not been kept, if the move to minimize human exposureto mercury “was also likely calculated to maintain publicconfidence in vaccines,” then, the failure to keep the 1999promise and the continual false claims that the 1999 promisehas been kept have most certainly undermined, and are undermining,“public confidence in vaccines.”

When such misleading statements are made by public healthofficials and others about any aspect of drug safety, includingthe removal of Thimerosal from vaccines, and then published,these statements contribute to the lessening of public confidencein vaccines as, in the current instance, the truth is revealed.

Thimerosal myth #15: Removing Thimerosal in vaccines createdthe opportunity to have the ultimate test of the Thimerosal-autismhypothesis. If rising Thimerosal doses in the 1990s ledto increasing rates of autism diagnosis, then the removal ofThimerosal should be followed within a few years by a similardrop in new autism diagnoses. If, on the other hand, Thimerosaldid not cause autism, then the incidence of new diagnosesshould continue to increase and eventually level off at or nearthe true rate of incidence.

Reality: Since:

• Thimerosal has not been removed from all vaccines,• For many U.S. children, the specific-dose received hassignificantly increased, and• The total maximum dose of Thimerosal that any U.S. childmay receive has not decreased by at least a factor of 100,this myth speaks to some future event or to some alternativepopulation (nation), where:• The promise has been kept and
• The maximum total dose of Thimerosal from vaccines thata child may receive from conception to 18 years of age isnear “zero” (< 0.001 ppm).

To support this assertion about the presence of Thimerosal invaccines, consider the list of U.S.-licensed vaccines containingThimerosal that are currently being distributed as shown in TableII.

Factually, at the beginning of 2008, this list still includes 8vaccines (in 5 “Vaccine” categories) with a preservative level ofThimerosal and 7 listed vaccines (in 6 “Vaccine” categories)with a reduced level of Thimerosal.

After reviewing the facts shown here, hopefully, readers willstop talking about the absence of Thimerosal in vaccines andstart working to:

• Remove Thimerosal from all marketed vaccines, and• Ban any use of Thimerosal, all other organic mercurycompounds, inorganic mercury compounds, and mercuryin any aspect of medicine or dentistry.Unlike today’s other complex scientific issues,• The proven general toxicity, teratogenecity, carcinogenicity,mutagenicity, and immune-system poisoning effectsof mercury, in all forms, at levels well-below 1 part-permillion(ppm) and• The long-half-lives for the end-metabolite, the bioaccumulative,tissue-retained “inorganic mercury” from thesemercury sources in the human body,

clearly indicate that urgent and immediate reforms are necessarybecause these established realities have proven that there isno justification for continuing to permit mercury, in any form,at any level, to be used in medicine and dentistry since thereare, and have been, suitable less toxic, non-bioaccumulativealternatives that can be used.

Thimerosal myth #16: Five years after the removal ofThimerosal, autism diagnosis rates have continued to increase(IDIC 2007). That is the final nail in the coffin in theThimerosal-vaccine-autism hypothesis. The believers, however,are in full rationalization mode. David Kirby and others havecharged that although no new vaccines with Thimerosal weresold after 2001, there was no recall, so pediatricians may havehad a stockpile of Thimerosal-laden vaccines--even though apublished inspection of 447 pediatric clinics and offices foundonly 1.9 percent of relevant vaccines still had Thimerosal byFebruary 2002, a tiny fraction that was either exchanged, used,or expired soon after (CDCP/ACIP 2002).

Reality: As shown in Table II, the truth is that Thimerosal isstill in vaccines at preservative and lower levels; and theseThimerosal-containing vaccines are being administered indirectlyto the fetus (in utero) and directly (postpartum) to developingchildren. The reader is urged to check the reference providedand verify that Thimerosal is still present in some of thevaccines approved for use in children as well as in most dosesof the influenza vaccines that are approved foradministration tochildren and pregnant women.

Thimerosal-preserved and Thimerosal-containing vaccines arestill being given to developing children under conditions that, in2002 and afterwards:

Significantly increased the specific toxicity exposure (specificdose; dose per kg of body weight) since the in-uterochild is being exposed to up to 50 micrograms ofThimerosal (25 micrograms of mercury) when that child’smother is administered a Thimerosal-preserved flu shot,and

Increasing the exposure by recommending two 0.25-mL flushots, 1 at 6 months and 1 at 7 months and increasing theage range to 6 months – 35 months in 2003,

Further increasing the exposure risk for some by recommendingthat all children get two flu shots a month a partthe first time they are vaccinated and extending the agerange to 59 months in 2005,

Additionally increasing the exposure risk for some by increasingthe age range to 107 months and suggesting allchildren would benefit from a flu shot in 2007, and

Increasing the exposure risk for all by increasing the agerange for all children to 18 years of age (potentially resultingin a total dose of more than 5,000 micrograms (5 milligrams)of injected Thimerosal-mercury from vaccines.

Thimerosal myth #17: Thimerosal still exists as a necessarypreservative in multi-shot vaccines outside the United States,especially in poor third-world countries that cannot affordstockpiles of single-shot vaccines. Anti-Thimerosal hysteriatherefore also threatens the health of children in poor countries.”

Reality: The preceding begins with a false premise—namelythat Thimerosal is “a necessary preservative.”

While the FDA regulations for some multi-dose (“multishot”)vaccines do require a preservative, they do not requirethat Thimerosal be that preservative. Factually, there are othersafer (non-bioaccumulative poisons, non-teratogens, and nonimmune-system disruptors) compounds that can be, have been,and are being used as a preservative in vaccines.

In addition to Thimerosal, the FDA currently allows severalcompounds or compound mixtures to be used as preservativesin U.S.-licensed vaccines (see Table III).

Thus, vaccine formulations using another preservative couldbe developed and deployed so that “poor third-world countriesthat cannot afford stockpiles of single-shot vaccines” couldstockpile multi-dose vaccines using these non-Thimerosal preservatives.

Furthermore, if the U.S. experience teaches us anything, it isthis: The long-term chronic-disease harm from the poisoning ofchildren by injecting them with Thimerosal and, thereby, mercurypoisoning all of those so injected to some degree, outweighsany cost-benefits currently attributed to the short-termprotection from administering these Thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Wakefield/Geier’s research myth #1: In 1998, researcher
AndrewWakefield and some of his colleagues published a study inthe prestigious English medical journal Lancet that claimed toshow a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism(Wakefield 1998). Wakefield’s theory was that the MMR vaccine,which contains a live virus, can cause in susceptible childrena chronic measles infection. This in turn leads to gastrointestinaldisturbances, including what he calls a "leaky gut" syndrome,which then allows for certain toxins and chemicals toenter the bloodstream where they can access and damage thedeveloping brain. Investigative reporter
Brian Deer has uncoveredgreater depths to Wakefield's apparent malfeasance. Wakefieldhad applied for patents for an MMR vaccine substitute andtreatments for his alleged MMR vaccine-induced gut disorder(Deer 2007). So, not only was he allegedly paid by lawyers tocast doubt on the MMR vaccine, but he stood to personally gainfrom the outcome of his research.”

Reality: Dr. Wakefield is a competent and recognized doctorand researcher (see Appendix C) whose accomplishments seemto support the general validity of the findings in his publishedstudies.

Moreover, it is less than ethical to attack the findings of scientificstudies by repeating unsubstantiated claims (e.g., “paidby lawyers to cast doubt on the MMR vaccine”) and attackingthe ethics and motives of the researchers who have published,and stood by, their study’s findings.

Interestingly, in this discussion of ethics and motives ofthose involved in the MMR controversy “in Great Britain,” nomention is made regarding potential British conflicts of interest,which have recently surfaced, among: a) a key presiding courtjurist, b) a management official for a British-based vaccinemaker, and c) a Lancet management official.

Furthermore, from a scientifically sound interpretation30 ofthe Danish epidemiological data for the introduction of theMMR vaccine and its delayed acceptance by the Danes31, it isclear that, in some cases, the MMR vaccine, known to induceneurological encephalopathies in some vaccinated with it, is acausal factor in some diagnosed neurodevelopmental disordercases where the children were diagnosed as having an ASD.

As shown in footnote 30’s Figure 4,. the prevalence of Danishautism cases increased statistically significantly from 0.34per 1,000 children age <15 years in the period 1993-1994 toabout 1.4 per 1,000 such children in 2000-2002, a “4-fold” increase.32

However, based on the two recent published33 U.S. CDCsurvey-based estimates (from 2000 and 2002), where theCDC’s publishing of both articles was inexplicably delayeduntil 2007, the two ASD rate estimates (for 8-year-old U.S.children: a) born in 1992 at six sites and b) born in 1994 at fourteensites) are both about 6.734 (or nominally 20 times the Danishrate for children up to 15 years of age in the 1993-1994 periodas well as about 4.6 times the peak rate in Denmark for the2000-2002 period35).

Wakefield/Geier’s research myth #2: Stephen Bustin, a worldexpert in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), testified that thelab Wakefield used to obtain the results for his original paperwas contaminated with measles virus RNA. It was thereforelikely, Bustin implied, that the PCR used by Wakefield wasdetecting this contamination and not evidence for measles infectionin the guts of children with autism who had been vaccinated,as Wakefield claimed. And finally, Nicholas Chadwicktestified that the measles RNA Wakefield found matched thelaboratory contamination and did not match either any naturallyoccurring strain or the strain used in the MMR vaccine—a factof which he had informed Wakefield (USCFC 2007).”

Reality: Other researchers have apparently independentlyconfirmed and extended Wakefield’s original findings.36

Reality: As most scientists know, statistics-based epidemiologicalstudies cannot “contradict a link”; they can only assessthe probability that there may be a link.Moreover, epidemiological studies,
by their population-basednature,
cannot generally find statistical significance whenthe effect (link) is confined to some small segment of that population.

This sub-population reality seems to be the case for the possiblelink between: a) MMR vaccination in children who generallyhave also received Thimerosal-containing vaccines and b)neuroencephalopathies that manifest with the set of symptomsused to diagnose autism spectrum disorders.

The reader should keep an open mind when it comes to thepossibility of a causal link between MMR and autism until theappropriate viral clinical toxicology studies, which have notbeen done, are conducted and the results of these studies establishthat such a link is not possible.

The reader should focus on the apparent validity of Wakefield’spublished findings and ignore the attack on Wakefield’salleged actions and motives until and unless they are substantiated.

Wakefield/Geier’s research myth #4: The only researcherswho are publishing data that contradicts the “consensus” thatvaccines in general, and Thimerosal in particular, do not causeautism are the father-and-son team of Mark and David Geier.They have looked at the same data as other scientists and haveconcluded that Thimerosal does correlate with autism.

Realty: Though the Geiers have probably been the most activeindependent researchers investigating the possible causativerole of Thimerosal and other mercury compounds in themercurypoisoning of children developing in utero and postnatally,others have also published in this area as the previously citedreferences and the references in the recent citizen petition filedby the Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs in 24 August 2007(FDA Docket # 2007P-0331) clearly show.37

37 This FDA citizen petition, titled “Citizen Petition to Ban Use ofMercury in Medicine, UNLESS Proven Toxicologically Safe to theCGMP Standard ‘Sufficiently Nontoxic …’” by the FDA, was filedby CoMeD, Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs, with the FDA Divisionof Dockets Management on 24 August 2007 and, on that day,was assigned FDA Docket # 2007P-0331 by the FDA.[See:http://www.mercury-free-drugs.org/docs/070824_CoMeDCitizenetitionPart2.pdf]

Searches of PubMed38 for indexed articles published in thelast 3 years and omitting the Geiers’ indexed publications aswell as any publications that were underwritten by the healthcareestablishment, this reviewer finds 27 papers by other authorsthat support: a) the human toxicity of Thimerosal andmercury in vaccines and b) the reality that, in some children,Thimerosal-containing vaccines have been, and are, a majorcause of the sub-acute mercury-poisoning symptoms that areexhibited by those diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder:

Thus, more than finding that there is a statistically significantcorrelation between the level of Thimerosal exposure andcertain neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism (see:articles “3,” “5,” “6,” and “7”), the Geiers have conducted casestudies (see: articles “2” and “4”) that have proven that somegroups of children with a diagnosed autism spectrum disorderare mercury poisoned (where the principal bolus-dose exposuresto mercury were from Thimerosal-containing vaccinesgiven to these children indirectly in utero and/or directly beginningjust after they were born.

Furthermore, they have published a comprehensive review(see: article “1”) of the available historical literature, scientificand otherwise, which clearly establishes the knowing mercurypoisoning of developing children by the healthcare establishmentthrough Thimerosal-containing vaccines and other drugscontaining a preservative level of Thimerosal or another organicmercury compound.

Finally, though many of the cited “consensus” studies failedto find statistically significant evidence of a Thimerosal-autismlink at a “by chance” probability value of less than 0.05, theydid find some statistical evidence of this link and, in those papers,the researchers found a statistically significant or nearstatistically significant Thimerosal-tics link that agreed with the“tics” findings reported by the Geiers’ papers.

Taken together, when the overwhelming majority of epidemiologicalstudies have statistical correlations in the same direction,as is the case for the Thimerosal-autism link, then thiscollective finding greatly exceeds the expectations of chanceand confirms that there is strong epidemiological evidence of aThimerosal-autism link.

This is the case because, if there were no link, about half ofthe studies should have found a near-zero or negative “dose”correlation and not the consensus of “dose” positive correlationsreported by almost all of the pertinent studies.

Reality: The cited study, Parker 2004, simply adds to the unsubstantiatedallegations used by the 2004 Institute of Medicine’s(IOM’s) CDC-paid committee to reject the Geiers’ earlyepidemiological papers by nitpicking at the details of:

The approaches the Geiers used to evaluate the data,and

The data that was or, in many cases, was not published inthe Geiers’ paper –

without consulting with the Geiers’ to see if the questioned informationwas available.

Moreover, Parker et al. failed to note that the approaches theGeiers were using were the same approaches, or approachessimilar, to the epidemiological and ecological study practicesused by the CDC.

Thus, this paper, published in September of 2004, by Parkeret al. was written to give substance to the unsupported allegationsthat the CDC’s tool, the IOM committee, had used early in2004 to reject the Geiers’ papers because, unlike those papersthis IOM committee chose to include in their review, the Geiers’studies found statistically significant causal links betweenThimerosal exposure and autism (or other neurodevelopmentaldisorders) in developing children.

Moreover, none of the few valid criticisms raised in Parkercould have had the effect of reducing the significance of thecausal linkages that the Geiers reported.

To their credit, rather than attacking the Parker et al. article,the Geiers simply responded by furnishing additional studydesigninformation as well as the data values, to the extent theywere able,39 in their publications.

The result appears to be that these criticisms have not beenraised for the Geiers’ subsequent published studies.

Moreover, since these articles were published in rigorouslypeer-reviewed journals, it is clear that unbiased peer-reviewerssupported the Geiers’ methods and conclusions.

Therefore, the reality is that these pre-publication peerreviewershad examined the Geiers methods and their conclusionsand found both to be scientifically sound and appropriatefor publication.

Thus, it is obvious that criticism of the Geiers’ publishedarticles are simply an attack on the outcomes because their findingsare at odds with the healthcare establishment’s unsubstantiatedviews.

Wakefield/Geier’s research myth #6:
The Geiers (like Wakefield)have made something of a career out of testifying forlawyers and families claiming that vaccines caused their child'sautism, even though the Geiers’ testimony is often excluded onthe basis that they lack the proper expertise (Goldacre2007).

The Geiers were not even called as experts in the Autism Omnibushearings.

39 Federal officials had given the Geiers with confidential data on thenumber of vaccine doses for a significant period of time with theunderstanding that they would not publish them. Since the CDCauthors in Parker et al. (2004) knew that this was the case, thequestioning of the denominators was, at best, inappropriate.

Reality: The Geiers have not made a career out of testifying inautism cases because

Too few legal autism cases have been brought to any court,vaccine or other, for any expert to make something of a careerout of testifying in such cases,

Only Dr. Mark R. Geier, and not David A Geier, couldhave been called to testify as a causation expert, and

In most cases, Dr. Geier has declined to be the lawyers’expert.

Since, in general, only Dr. Geier testifies in vaccine injurycases and the source “(Goldacre2007)” is an editorial piece in aU.K. newspaper, this unsupported allegation should be ignored.

Moreover, while some vaccine court presiding administratorsand some federal court judges have rejected Dr. Geier’stestifying as a qualified expert, most vaccine-court administrators(special masters) and federal and state judges have recognizedDr. Geier as an expert in vaccine cases dealing with damagefrom the DPT, MMR and some other vaccines in mostcases when he was an expert for the petitioners.

Factually, Dr. Geier was not called as an expert witness inthe three test cases where the theory of causation is “Thimerosalexposure with, or followed by, the MMR vaccine.”

Since the Geiers have only two peer-reviewed publicationswhere the live-virus measles/mumps/rubella vaccine was addressed,40 understandably other experts were chosen to testify inthe first three test cases.

However, because the cases for the other two theories ofcausation, “Thimerosal exposure causes” and “MMR exposurecauses,” have not yet been considered by the Vaccine court’sspecial masters and the list of experts for the “Thimerosal exposurecauses” theory of causation has not yet been finalized, itremains to be seen whether or not Dr. Geier will be scheduledto testify as an expert in other than the conceded Polingcase –though it is clear he probably will be testifying in other autismcases where the developing child has also been proven to bemercury poisoned.

Wakefield/Geier’s research myth #7: The Geiers are nowundertaking an ethically suspect study in which they are administeringchelation therapy to children with autism in conjunctionwith powerful hormonal therapy allegedly designed to reducetestosterone levels.”

Reality: Here, the statement begins by impugning the ethics ofthe Geiers with an unsupported claim that the “Geiers are nowundertaking an ethically suspect study.”

40 Geier DA, Geier MR. A comparative evaluation of the effects ofMMR immunization and mercury doses from Thimerosal-containingchildhood vaccines on the population prevalence of autism.Med Sci Monit. 2004; 10:PI33–9

Chelation TherapyWith respect to the Geiers’ “administering chelation therapyto children with autism,” the facts are that the Geiers are givingmedically appropriate “chelation therapy to children” who havebeen proven to be mercury poisoned (by either chelation challengeor, better, by a valid urine porphyrin profile analysis[UPPA] test) and have an autism spectrum diagnosis.

Whenever children are found to be mercury poisoned, chelationtherapy is the medically recognized treatment regimen toreduce the mercury level in these children until the residuallevel is “safe” (where the proven safe level of mercury in humansis close to zero (0) because no safe level has been established).

Thus, the Geiers’ administration of chelation therapy isclearly both ethical and medically indicated.

Hormonal TherapyFactually, the Geiers are using proven androgen-suppressingtherapies to treat some children with an autism diagnosis whohave, by clinical testing, been found to have abnormally elevatedandrogen levels in their blood.

Medically, these children have recognized endocrine conditionsthat are labeled as “precocious puberty” and/or “hyperandrogyny.”

Accurately, when they are properly prescribed, given, andmonitored, these androgen-suppressing therapies have beenfound to be effective in reducing the over-production of androgens,including testosterone, in children.

Thus, the only truth in this misconception’s phrasing, “inconjunction with powerful hormonal therapy allegedly designedto reduce testosterone levels,” is that some of the Geiers’ patients,who have been found to: a) be mercury poisoned and b)have abnormally elevated androgen levels, are concomitantlytreated for both abnormal these conditions, as they should be.

Thus, the chelation therapy offered by the Geiers is offeredindependent of the actual causal theory “Thimerosal exposure iscausally linked to neurodevelopmental disorders, including theautism spectrum disorders,” because this chelation therapywould be offered to any of the Geiers’ patients who:

Have been shown to be mercury poisoned by appropriatetesting and

Do not have any contraindications (e.g., mercury-amalgamdental filings) that must be addressed before initiating anysolid-dosage-form DMSA-based or DMPS-based chelationtherapy to remove stored mercury from their bodies.

So the statement “… mercury hypothesis, which is all butdisproved” appears to be Orwellian in which the opposite of thetruth is again presented as the truth.

Wakefield/Geier’s research myth #9:
There is no clinical evidencefor the efficacy of chelation therapy. Such treatment is farfrom benign and is even associated with occasional deaths(Brown 2006).

Reality: Based on a review of peer-reviewed publications, “theefficacy of chelation therapy” has long been recognized.41

The most aggressive chelation treatment that the Geiers use,intermittent oral capsules and/or anal suppositories of DMSA orDMPS with interlaced replacement of the beneficial mineralsthat the administered chelating compound removes, is benignand has not been associated with any deaths caused by thistreatment approach.

Furthermore, the reference given in this misrepresentation,“(Brown 2006)” [“Brown MJ, Willis T, Omalu B, Leiker R.2006. Deaths resulting from hypocalcemia after administrationof edetate disodium: 2003-2005.Pediatrics. 118(2): e534-36”],is for a wrongful death case where the wrong form of a differentchelating agent, “edetate disodium”, was administered to thepatient, and an unapproved administration procedure, push IVchelation, was used to deliver this chelating agent.

In this case, the death was caused by medical negligence andnot by chelation per se.

Thus, the reality is that there is clinical evidence of the efficacyof the chelation therapy used by the Geiers and no evidencethat the chelation therapy used by the Geiers has been“occasional deaths.”

Wakefield/Geier’s research myth #10:
With respect to thetransient decline in autism rates reported in Geier, D.A., andM.R. Geier. 2006. An assessment of downward trends in neurodevelopmentaldisorders in the United States following removalof Thimerosal from childhood vaccines. Medical ScienceMonitor 12(6):CR231-9. Epub 2006 May 29, the Geiers simplyreinterpreted the data using bad statistics to create the illusionof a downward trend where none exists.

Reality: To substantiate this statement, independent researcherswould have to request the raw data from the Geiers, find errorsin it, and/or reanalyze the published data the Geiers used, andfind a different result.

Apparently, no one has done this.

Moreover, the peer reviewers, who did review “Geier, D.A.,and M.R. Geier. 2006. An assessment of downward trends inneurodevelopmental disorders in the United States followingremoval of Thimerosal from childhood vaccines. Medical ScienceMonitor 12(6): CR231-9. Epub 2006 May 29” for thejournal, having no issues with the data or the standard statisticalprocedures used in its analysis, recommended the article bepublished.

Finally, visually, the graphs provided for the data used appearto show a decline and apparently have plotted the datapoints appropriately.

Based on all of the preceding facts, there is no truth to thismyth/misconception.

ConclusionThe propaganda dispensed by Public health care and vaccineapologists is, at best, a weak attempt to rationalize the healthcareestablishment’s positions using all the tools of doublespeakto: (a) mislead, (b) distort reality, (c) pretend to communicate,(d) make the bad seem good, (e) avoid and/or shift responsibility,(f) make the negative appear positive, (g) create a false verbalmap of the world, and (h) create dissonance between realityand what their narrative said or did not say.

Vaccine apologists, health officials, child healthcare providers,government officials and vaccine makers, who (in the faceof conclusive case studies and human toxicological evaluationsshowing sub-acute mercury poisoning from Thimerosal) arecontinuing to misrepresent: 1) the knowing failure of all theseparties to keep their 1999 promise to remove Thimerosal fromall vaccines, and 2) the maximum total amount of vaccinederivedThimerosal which a child born today may receive fromconception to the age 18 years.